45
   

Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 07:38 pm
@BillRM,
You really don't understand the legal system of the US, do you? All criminal charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. All. That's the instruction given to every jury that sits in on a trial.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  3  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 07:54 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

All he has to do is to create a "reasonable doubt" as to whether he acted in self-defense. A proposed amendment to the Florida Jury Instructions makes that perfectly clear.
Six years ago in Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006), the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida ruled that once a defendant in a criminal case has introduced proof that he acted in self-defense the jury is entitled to consider the defense, and the jury may not convict the defendant unless it finds beyond a reasonable that he did not act in self-defense. The Fourth District Court of Appeal stated:



How interesting, but doesn't this presuppose the case must be presented to a jury?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 09:22 pm
@roger,
Quote:
How interesting, but doesn't this presuppose the case must be presented to a jury?


If it get that far but there is another part of the self defense law that can stop short that from happening.

Where self defense is claimed even before a trial is allow to start there will be a special hearing before a judge and if the judge find he did likely act in self defense he is then immune from not only the criminal charges but any possible civil charges also.

In other word Trayvon family will not be able to sue Zimmerman either for the killing.



0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  4  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 09:22 pm
@roger,
BillRM just plain doesn't understand that, when someone kills another person, the burden of proof is on them to prove or establish that it was justifiable self defense--that's their defense to a criminal charge.
And, in Florida, that can take place during a pre-trial hearing, at which time the judge can dismiss the criminal charges if a preponderance of the evidence presented by the defendant suggests or indicates self defense--which is a much lower burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt. And I already mentioned all of that in this thread--BillRM just doesn't read, or absorb, or understand, or consider, what other people post.

BillRM also posts an article that, in fact, talks about the burden of proof for self defense but he still contends that the defendant doesn't have to prove anything. So he doesn't read, or absorb, or understand, or consider, even the material he himself posts.

Zimmerman has already committed a homicide, that's not in doubt, but the contention that it was done in self defense is, in effect, a not guilty plea regarding his criminal liability for that killing. BillRM has difficulty wrapping his head around that concept.

So, in Florida, this case can be dismissed at a pre-trial hearing by a judge--it may never get to a jury.

And two lacerations on the scalp are not sufficient evidence that the use of deadly force was justified as an act of self defense. The lacerations, by themselves, do not prove that his head was repeatedly pounded on the pavement by the man he killed. As I've said, he could have been knocked down and hit his head on the concrete, he could even have slipped on the grass, fallen down, and hit his head on the pavement.
He'd need a lot more in the way of medical testimony about his injuries to back up his story about his head being repeatedly banged on the pavement by Martin. BillRM may be convinced by two photos, a judge will likely require more than that in the way of evidence to justify the killing of a human being in this particular set of circumstances.

I don't know whether Zimmerman's claims of self defense are valid. That's why I'm glad this case is in court. I want to know what the evidence is and what it indicates. I want Zimmerman to have his day in court to present evidence that deadly force was justified. I want to hear the state's evidence that casts doubt on the claim of self defense.When the evidence is in, hopefully it will shed light on what the most just resolution of this case should be.

BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 10:12 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
BillRM just plain doesn't understand that, when someone kills another person, the burden of proof is on them to prove or establish that it was justifiable self defense--that's their defense to a criminal charge


That however is not the Florida law and anyone can do a google search and find that out as it is not a secret.

This is the first time that I can think of that Firefly had try to put out false informations that can be check on with such ease.

The state had the burden of proving beyond a reason doubt that it was not self defense n0t the other way around.

What up Firefly as this is far far too simple to check out by anyone for you to had a hope in hell getting away with such false information.


http://didyouknow.org/24-us-states-that-have-sweeping-self-defense-laws-just-like-floridas/

In Florida, a homicide case can be thrown out by a judge before trial because
the defendant successfully invokes self-defense. The burden is on the prosecution to disprove the claim in order to bring charges, rather than do so in the trial. The Florida state attorney leading the prosecution told ABC news that the self-defense law means it is “more difficult than a normal criminal case” to bring charges.



See: 24 US States That Have Sweeping Self-Defense Laws Just Like Florida’s

cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 10:35 pm
@BillRM,
Do you ever know what you are talking about?

Quote:
Considerations
Even in the case of an intruder in the home, under the old Castle Doctrine, use of deadly force is limited. The use of force must be proportionate to the threat, limiting deadly force to extreme cases, or at least to cases where a clear physical danger is present. Pre-emptive use of force to neutralize a threat can fall under self-defense, but if an assailant ceases to be a threat, self-defense no longer applies. Self-defense does not justify retaliatory attack after a crime has taken place, such as a rape victim who later tracks down and kills the rapist. Florida's self-defense laws, however, have significantly modified several of these limitations.



Read more: About Florida Self-Defense Laws | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_4577787_florida-selfdefense-laws.html#ixzz1t7NIoIlZ
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 10:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Sure do and I had the links to prove it.........

Sorry but whatever the laws are in others states it is the state burden in Florida to disprove a self defense claim not the other way around.

Is that not a bummer for people who wish to hang Zimmerman for daring to defend himself.

Now my question is how long will Firefly try to denial facts that anyone can check on by way of google in a few seconds?
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  4  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 12:06 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
The burden is on the prosecution to disprove the claim in order to bring charges

But, to disprove a claim of self defense, the claim must first be made, and it must be backed up by evidence--like medical evidence to support Zimmerman's account of how he received his injuries, and to support whether or not those injuries were serious.. .or life threatening. A bloody nose and two bloody lacerations on the scalp are not sufficient, by themselves, to justify killing someone, nor do they indicate that Zimmerman's head was repeatedly pounded on concrete. If his head was forceably held by Martin, there should be finger marks or bruises where it was held, the back of the head should show bruised areas or swellings beside the lacerations, etc.
And those injuries do not mean that Zimmerman was not the aggressor, the one who provoked the fight.

And the state will contend that Zimmerman pursued Martin, and that Martin had been trying to flee from him in order to return to where his father was staying. They will contend that it was Zimmerman who, disregarding the instructions of the 911 dispacher, followed, and frightened, and confronted, Martin and then shot him. That's already in the affadavit of probable cause.
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2012/04/trayvon-martin-shooting-death-affidavit-of-probable-cause-text-version.html

So, the state will contend that Zimmerman was the aggressor. After being confronted, Martin might have punched Zimmerman, knocking him down, and then struggling with him, in an attempt to protect his own life--something Martin would have had a right to do, if he was the one who was pursued and confronted. And then Zimmerman shot him.

The state likely has more evidence than was included in the affadavit of probable cause to support their contention that Zimmerman followed Martin--and which would refute Zimmerman's version of how the confrontation came about.

On the police report, the incident is noted as being a "homicide--negligent manslaughter--unneccessary killing to prevent unlawful act". Note the "unnecessary killing" part. Note the "manslaughter" part.
http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/327370-trayvon-martin-police-report

You're not getting anywhere trying to decide this case all by yourself. You don't have facts, you have only speculations.
Quote:
Is that not a bummer for people who wish to hang Zimmerman for daring to defend himself.

You're overlooking the possibility that Martin might have shot for "daring to defend himself" from Zimmerman--which certainly would be a bummer for those trying to paint Zimmerman as an innocent victim.

Why don't you just wait for it to get to court and see what evidence both sides present?







hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 01:21 am
Quote:
During the time Zimmerman was in hiding, his detractors defined him as a vigilante who had decided Martin was suspicious merely because he was black. After Zimmerman was finally arrested on a charge of second-degree murder more than six weeks after the shooting, prosecutors portrayed him as a violent and angry man who disregarded authority by pursuing the 17-year-old.
But a more nuanced portrait of Zimmerman has emerged from a Reuters investigation into Zimmerman's past and a series of incidents in the community in the months preceding the Martin shooting.
Based on extensive interviews with relatives, friends, neighbors, schoolmates and co-workers of Zimmerman in two states, law enforcement officials, and reviews of court documents and police reports, the story sheds new light on the man at the center of one of the most controversial homicide cases in America.
The 28-year-old insurance-fraud investigator comes from a deeply Catholic background and was taught in his early years to do right by those less fortunate. He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather - the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.
A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of break-ins committed by young African-American men.
Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.
"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin..
.
.
.
EMMANUEL BURGESS - SETTING THE STAGE
On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman placed a call to Sanford police after spotting a young black man he recognized peering into the windows of a neighbor's empty home, according to several friends and neighbors.
"I don't know what he's doing. I don't want to approach him, personally," Zimmerman said in the call, which was recorded. The dispatcher advised him that a patrol car was on the way. By the time police arrived, according to the dispatch report, the suspect had fled.
On February 6, the home of another Twin Lakes resident, Tatiana Demeacis, was burglarized. Two roofers working directly across the street said they saw two African-American men lingering in the yard at the time of the break-in. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. One of the roofers called police the next day after spotting one of the suspects among a group of male teenagers, three black and one white, on bicycles.
Police found Demeacis's laptop in the backpack of 18-year-old Emmanuel Burgess, police reports show, and charged him with dealing in stolen property. Burgess was the same man Zimmerman had spotted on February 2.
Burgess had committed a series of burglaries on the other side of town in 2008 and 2009, pleaded guilty to several, and spent all of 2010 incarcerated in a juvenile facility, his attorney said. He is now in jail on parole violations.
Three days after Burgess was arrested, Zimmerman's grandmother was hospitalized for an infection, and the following week his father was also admitted for a heart condition. Zimmerman spent a number of those nights on a hospital room couch.
Ten days after his father was hospitalized, Zimmerman noticed another young man in the neighborhood, acting in a way he found familiar, so he made another call to police.
"We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy," Zimmerman said, as Trayvon Martin returned home from the store.
The last time Zimmerman had called police, to report Burgess, he followed protocol and waited for police to arrive. They were too late, and Burgess got away.
This time, Zimmerman was not so patient, and he disregarded police advice against pursuing Martin.


http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-prelude-shooting-194235114.html;_ylt=A2KJNF.W9JhPTn4AouzQtDMD
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 01:23 am
@firefly,
Quote:
Why don't you just wait for it to get to court and see what evidence both sides present?


There is about as much chance of that happening as there is of meeting the Easter Bunny for coffee.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 02:15 am
@hawkeye10,
You don't think this will get to court?
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 03:35 am
@firefly,
It will get to the court as in the special hearing before a judge but not before a jury is my guess.

Given Zimmerman wounds and Florida law on the subject I do not see why Zimmerman would be willing to take any kind of plea deal that for sure.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 04:28 am
@roger,
roger wrote:
I really think the racial component of this fiasco has been greatly over played.
Remove race from the situation and we have, well, the exact same situation.
So u think that if thay 'd both been whites,
then Sharpton and Jesse Jackson woud have
inflicted such public hysteria upon us??????? Right ?

I don 't think so.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 05:12 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
It does say something about our society and not a good thing for sure.
Frank Apisa wrote:
Actually, Bill, some of the stuff you are saying on this issue says something about a segment of society that disgusts me.
The fact that there are people here agreeing with your take...disheartens me. In any case,

that a segment of our society feels the way you folk do, in my opinion,
is not a good thing for our nation or for humanity in general.
EVERY member of humanity
shud be avidly interested in creating law
such that if it becomes necessary
for him to defend himself from predatory violence,
he can freely attend to ending the danger to himself,
with NO CONCERN for the well being of the predator.

In other words:
EVERY
member of humanity shud reason:
"if I fall victim to predatory violence,
and if I kill the bad guys,
HOW do I want the law to PROTECT ME,
and to comfort me, and to make me feel better???"

To put it more plainly:
every member of humanity
shud demand of his representatives in all legislatures
that the law protect his natural rights of self defense
so that if he (or those whom he loves) fall victim
to predatory violence, thay can freely kill the perpetrators
as fast as thay POSSIBLY can,
with no fear of retributive vengeance from government for so doing, even if that disgusts Frank Apisa.

A victim who does NOT fight back as well as he possibly can (in fear of government)
can get killed because of his concern for the well being of the bad guy.
THAT scenario, Frank, I find to be disgusting, to use your chosen word.
I want the good guy to win. I don 't care about the bad guy.

(My reference to "every" member of humanity
does not include professional criminals (e.g., robbers or burglars),
because it is THAY upon whom that defense woud be applied.
For their safety on-the-job,
thay shud demand laws against self defense
and supportive of gun control.)





David
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 06:09 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
So u think that if thay 'd both been whites,
then Sharpton and Jesse Jackson woud have
inflicted such public hysteria upon us??????? Right ?

I don 't think so.


Even more fun think about the likely outcome if Zimmerman had been a black man and Trayvon had been white.

Can you just see Sharpton and his like yelling their heads off over Zimmerman being charge?

Not that long ago a white kid was attacked and knock unconscious from behind by a group of black kids for the sole reason that he was white and Al and others yell their heads off for the state using the hate crime laws.

The true racists are the Sharptons of the world.


OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 06:37 am
@BillRM,
DAVID wrote:
So u think that if thay 'd both been whites,
then Sharpton and Jesse Jackson woud have
inflicted such public hysteria upon us??????? Right ?

I don 't think so.
BillRM wrote:
Even more fun think about the likely outcome if Zimmerman had been a black man and Trayvon had been white.

Can you just see Sharpton and his like yelling their heads off over Zimmerman being charge?
U have a good sense of humor, Bill.



BillRM wrote:
Not that long ago a white kid was attacked and knock unconscious from behind by a group of black
kids for the sole reason that he was white and Al and others yell their heads off
for the state using the hate crime laws.
I was not aware of that.


BillRM wrote:
The true racists are the Sharptons of the world.
I don 't begrudge them their opinions about anything.
I did not even begrudge Stalin his opinions.





David
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 07:10 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

roger wrote:
I really think the racial component of this fiasco has been greatly over played.
Remove race from the situation and we have, well, the exact same situation.
So u think that if thay 'd both been whites,
then Sharpton and Jesse Jackson woud have
inflicted such public hysteria upon us??????? Right ?

I don 't think so.





David

The funny thing is, I haven't seen Sharpton or Jackson in any news reports. I wouldn't know they were involved at all if it wasn't for RW nutcases telling me repeatedly that they are the ones causing this public outrage. They didn't cause my interest in the case. They didn't organize the million hoodie march. I don't see how they caused any public hysteria other than RW hysteria like yours.
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 07:16 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
I don't see how they caused any public hysteria other than RW hysteria like yours.

Precisely.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 08:02 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

roger wrote:
I really think the racial component of this fiasco has been greatly over played.
Remove race from the situation and we have, well, the exact same situation.
So u think that if thay 'd both been whites,
then Sharpton and Jesse Jackson woud have
inflicted such public hysteria upon us??????? Right ?

I don 't think so.





David

The funny thing is, I haven't seen Sharpton or Jackson in any news reports.
I saw them. Sharpton was waving his arms n yelling.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 10:26 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I didn't realize you were such a follower of Sharpton David. I don't think I have seen him once in the last 5 years.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.68 seconds on 10/24/2014 at 09:21:03